Wahrheit Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 Alternative theories welcomed, too. Thousands of years of moral philosophy hasn't been able to "solve" this question, but maybe YCM can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shradow Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 I'm leaning more towards the latter. Let's say someone is an average Joe, but at one point in their life they were the cause of an accident that resulted in someone's death. That's pretty funking bad, and it's something that average Joe would have to live with, but I don't think that'd be cause for me to consider him a terrible person in general. Maybe that's just an extreme example, though, I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted January 24, 2017 Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 I'm more inclined towards the latter too (though I think our deeds are just an aspect of who we are). The former seems rather harsh. Philosophy in of itself isn't so much for "solving" things, but rather holding things under certain lenses in order to make sense of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2017 I'm more inclined towards the latter too (though I think our deeds are just an aspect of who we are). The former seems rather harsh. Philosophy in of itself isn't so much for "solving" things, but rather holding things under certain lenses in order to make sense of them. You don't think there are certain questions that have right answers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Any answer to any question is a right answer, regardless of whether it "solves" anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Any answer to any question is a right answer, regardless of whether it "solves" anything. That's not what I mean. If I ask you whether chocolate or vanilla is better, there's not really a right answer - it's about preferences (however, there is clearly a wrong answer, pistachio). Some questions are about preferences, some questions are about "right answers," and lots of questions are a little of both. Do you think this is a question with a right answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Any answer is a right answer, pick your preference. "Right answer questions" are just questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Frankly, the issue with such a question lies in the word "median". If, say, you did one absolutely horrible thing, one neutral thing, and one slightly good thing, the median would be neutral, despite the impact leaning overwhelmingly toward the negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Any answer is a right answer, pick your preference. "Right answer questions" are just questions. This is avoiding the question and bad-faith. Please don't do it in my thread.Frankly, the issue with such a question lies in the word "median". If, say, you did one absolutely horrible thing, one neutral thing, and one slightly good thing, the median would be neutral, despite the impact leaning overwhelmingly toward the negative.Nobody does three things, though. The point is that the question is supposed to get at what your habits are. You can probably still be a good person even if you accidentally do an awful thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Like many proofs of concept, what I said was over-simplified for the sake of clarity. Point being that in such a system of judging a person, the degree of their misgivings isn't taken into account. Further, in regards to judgment, I believe that intent is crucial. Good people can do bad things. Bad people can do good things. The quality of a human can't be determined purely by their actions. Horrible mistakes can be done completely of ignorance. Put simply, sheet's funked and people are complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 Like many proofs of concept, what I said was over-simplified for the sake of clarity. Point being that in such a system of judging a person, the degree of their misgivings isn't taken into account. Further, in regards to judgment, I believe that intent is crucial. Good people can do bad things. Bad people can do good things. The quality of a human can't be determined purely by their actions. Horrible mistakes can be done completely of ignorance. Put simply, sheet's funked and people are complicated.That's still dodging the question. Say we can quantify that and put it on the scale. Are you the worst thing you've ever done, or somewhere in the middle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 This is avoiding the question and bad-faith. Please don't do it in my thread. I encourage you to assume good faith as it's more practical and rewarding than the reverse. If you choose not to, that's entirely up to you and shall in no way dictate my behaviour. To clarify again, I told you my view that any answer to any question is a right answer. Your question of "Do you think this question has a right answer?" is answerable by being a question, and is included in having a right answer. To address your question as directly as I possibly can, my answer to "Do you think this question has a right answer?" is "Yes." I have absolutely nothing to gain from avoiding your questions. When I say "pick your preference", it is a general statement because I believe you can answer any question however you choose to and your answer will be no less of a right answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 I encourage you to assume good faith as it's more practical and rewarding than the reverse. If you choose not to, that's entirely up to you and shall in no way dictate my behaviour.No. My thread has a premise. To the extent you avoid the premise, you derail the thread. The further you make excuses to avoid the premise, the further you derail the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 What premise of yours do you allege me to be avoiding? I've answered all your questions from the title question in my initial post to your follow-up questions in my subsequent posts. What is it you would like me to do, precisely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 What premise of yours do you allege me to be avoiding? I've answered all your questions from the title question in my initial post to your follow-up questions in my subsequent posts. What is it you would like me to do, precisely?You said philosophy isn't for "solving" things. That's like, patently false. Different theories can all be used for a task, but each of those theories is in effect a "solution" to a question. Furthermore, the theories tend to contradict each other, such that only one can be correct - determining which is a further solution, so too would be identifying a way to reconcile and unify them. The goal is still always a unified approach. To that end, when you dodge the question, you leave the problem unsolved. The point of the thread is to solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted January 25, 2017 Report Share Posted January 25, 2017 The title question presents a false dilemma. I don't see anyone here earnestly preferring the former (yourself included since you said "You can probably still be a good person even if you accidentally do an awful thing."), nor do I see why we must stop at a perfect median of our habits, while it's preferable. Thankfully, you've also allowed us to bring further options. My theory for dealing with the not insignificant question of what we are is rooted in my belief that we are of God. We are manifestations of God's omnipotent will. The inner light and inner pulse that animates us is God, within. We are life, and are replete with joy, mercy, beauty, and compassion from our source. We have the option to appreciate each other as such, to love one another and have faith in humanity, and why not? Philosophy is growth through love of wisdom, it is about finding one's bearings and mediating them with others' to strengthen our sense of purpose. Someone who is said to be philosophical is calm in the midst of chaos and despair, even in the face of death, yet "There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently." While it certainly has the capacity to help solve worldly problems, curing toothaches is not what it's for, nor does it exist for finding definitive, end-all solutions. I think that's why we've been using "solve" and its variants in scare quotes this whole time from the OP onwards, though I'll let you speak to your usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.